The last moments of Theo Van Gogh at the hands of an Islamofascist killer creates an interesting portrait of our times. The name 'Van Gogh' is synonymous with Western culture, tied to an era that some argue was the greatest period of art in the West, with much Eastern influence. And in 2004, Vincent Van Gogh's great grandnephew, having made a film about how women are mistreated under Islam, is shot repeatedly, then stabbed.
Theo Van Gogh's last piteous pleadings before his Islamic killer might very well be the words of modern Europe grappling with its rising tide of Muslims on the Old Continent: "Don't do it. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!"
It's hard to read about Van Gogh's fate and not draw a symbolic parallel between his death and the decline of Europe as a whole. The death of Van Gogh at the hands of a jihadist---in Amsterdam, no less---underscores the cultural divide that socialist European nations are nurturing while in their quest to keep Europe safe for Muslims. Van Gogh was a filmmaker and columnist who appears to have epitomized a secular, post-modern liberal view of the world. He spared no religion his derision; he once mocked a prominent Dutch Jew, referred to Jesus as the rotten fish of Nazareth, and called a radical Muslim politician Allah's pimp. All three Abrahamic religions received his wrath, rightly or wrongly. But only one broke out the koummya and sliced his throat.
Perhaps a state funeral is in order, to lament Europe's passing. Theo Van Gogh the Younger might have been an opinionated, unbridled and uncouth liberal art lunatic who needed to know his limits with Islamofascism's medieval sensibilities; or he might be a hero and martyr to what's left of an enlightened Europe, in a steep decline. Or perhaps he was simply both.
Rest in Peace, Theo.
Or it could be a watershed moment. Things are brewing, everyone is tense here in Amsterdam, there's more police around than I've ever seen. The next few days will tell.
Arjan:
That's surprising. I'd always have thought any flashpoint for wider violence would be Arab vs. Jew.
I understand there was a well attended protest in Dam square. But in reality, what options are available?
The "watershed" moment will come when the Muslims of Europe realize they're a Mafia unto themselves, and powerful enough due to their burgeoning populations to take over their host countries. By force.
Mark my words: they will. Europe may have "home-grown" its Nazis, its brownshirts only but 65 years ago, and these took by force reign and control of the populations that were absurdly in denial of the menace-in-the-midst. The same european denial is in high krausen right now: those police milling around were doing what, exactly, yesterday? Grousing about their pay, planning their vacations, browbeetling the cranky old Armenian for not having a 'proper' oven in which to bake his flatbread? So, now they mill.
And for what? Oh sure, largely to "keep the peace", to ensure that the more hot-headed Amsterdamsters don't cabal-and-rampage hunting for beturbaned heads. [Or, if they do, that the turbanos don't go on a retalitory rampage of their own, a la the Indian Muslim/Hindu thrust and repartee of only a couple of years ago.
I wonder how it must feel to see all the Tutsi's sharpening their swords in Euro-Hutuland.
GoatGuy
GoatGuy, I'd say Europe is certainly incubating the brownshirts for this task, but its Muslim population is not homogeneous and it is not too late to avert the problem.
Of course, all this recalls the political murder of gay activist Pim Fortuyn, whose party expressed serious reservations about Muslim immigrants destroying the country's tradition of tolerance, and the need for unabashedly integrationist policies backed by force of law.
I wonder what shape his party is in, these days?
@Davebo: I am not necessarily referring to violence. This may be a turning point in Dutch politics. If there is violence, which wouldn't be entirely surprising, it will probably give even more momentum to recent events. I have a bit of hope left things might just change because of this (then again, I am young, and therefore idealistic and stupid ;-)) Don't underestimate the Dutch. We may be very tolerant on a huge number of issues - hell, we provided a safe shelter for Rene Descartes when France wouldn't have him - but we get very intolerant when somebody tries to interfere with that.
For a long time, people have tolerated the intolerance. It's in the atmosphere that a lot of people don't want to accept that anymore. Although I am a right wing voter (I vote for Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and a fierce critic of radical Islam, of the free-market Liberal Party in the last election), I went to the rally at the Dam Square with a longtime friend of mine who is a liberal in the American sense: a Green Party voter. We disagree on nearly everything else politically. Both right and left are very much fed up with it all, and I really hope the tide is turning. I don't want to shamelessly plug my blog, but it contains an article about the vice mayor of Amsterdam, a Moroccan and a member of the left wing Labour Party. He went into a mosque yesterday to tell his fellow Muslims that if they couldn't accept Dutch values, they'd better catch a plane out of the country. That action was totally unprecedented and it is extremely harsh language for a Dutch politician of any breed, let alone a liberal one. His carreer would have been over had he said such a thing even a few years ago.
If it turns out I overestimate my nation, I can always try to apply for immigration status in the USA - that was my inital emotional response when I heard of the murder, but I am not ready to give up hope just yet. And neither are a lot of other Dutch. People are mad - beware the anger of a patient man.
We may be very tolerant on a huge number of issues... but we get very intolerant when somebody tries to interfere with that.
Bravo. Really. The best way to untangle the self-referential Gordian knot bound up by concept of "tolerance" is to use a sharp sword.
The Muslims will nver take over in Europe. They are too few, and their birth-rates are not much higher than those of 'native', and still declining. The same socio-economic factors that depress our birthrates apply to them, too.
@Arjan
I understand. I suppose there's a lesson to be learned here. When a very tolerant nation decides it needs to import labor, perhaps it should look to like minded societies.
I hope you guys figure out a solution. I've many friends in Holland and visit at least once a year and I want to continue that.
Goatguy
The concept of muslims taking over Europe is just as idiotic as the concept of Osama taking over America.
This was so shocking...
I just want to make a few remarks:
1. For Muslims, in general, anything having to do with their wives and daughters can be extremely annoying. Look at all these honour killings in Pakistan. That is one big difference between Islam and other Abrahamic religions...
2. Theo's death will open many more eyes, esp. on the so called "European Left". Mourn Theo instead of Arafat! [BBC]
3. Culture? Even if you brainwashed most of the Muslims in Europe according to the Western tradition, a few will always be radicalized and they will resort to terrorism. Terrorsim, and more so in these seemingly smaller scales, is a problem that by definition cannot be uprooted, but can [and should be] only resisted by all means.
4. Unfortunately, many will say that Theo was the victim of his own intolerance in the first place.
5. I am wondering if the Master himself was alive in our times, what would he be doing instead of painting? Most probably he would be going to the film school and then dropping out, like Theo, but then would he produce Theo's kind of work?
I've noticed a segment of the western populace that have adopted a martyrdom plan of their own. They are people who are so consumed with their own self-hatred and resulting paralysis that their normal sense of self-preservation dissolves. Although Mr. Van Gogh may have discussed the intellectual intricacies of Islamist reasoning earlier that day, when the cold reality of bullets and knives penetrated his body, the response of, "Don't do it. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!" revealed the atrophied and pitiful survival instinct that remained to defend him in his final moments. Too little, too late.
For our enemies, martyrdom is a means to kill us. For us, it's a means to kill ourselves.
@Matt: I agree with you that some people translate their self-doubt or existential fears into some sort of all-encompassing cultural relativism and nihilism.
Hoever, I'm not sure either you or I know enough about what went on in Mr. Van Gogh's mind to make that kind of judgment. Van Gogh was no coward: he confronted radical Islamists before, even one that had threatened to kill him before. He also had a son that the entire city knew he loved very much. They were spotted regularly in the zoo. I don't know about you, but if I had a son, that alone would make me want to live on so I could be there for him. Last, these 'last words' are just one of many versions. According to another account, he actually wanted to convince the guy to discuss his griefs, rather than continue to use violence. This was when he'd already been hit a few times. That requires some chutzpah.
(I'm sorry but I get really touchy these days if it is even suggested that any Dutch person, let alone Mr. Van Gogh, doesn't have a backbone ;-))
As far as I can tell, the only mistake Van Gogh made was not carrying a gun (screw Europe's gun laws), accepting police protection or both. Those mistakes made his "have mercy" lines somewhat inevitable. With no means of self defence, facing down a jihadi who has a gun and knives won't make for tales of heroism.
Matt:
Are you saying that Van Gogh sought his own death?
PD Shaw
I spoke too quickly and not clearly enough. I am only aware of Mr. Van Gogh from this article, and was speaking more generally than I should have using him as an example.
I am saying what Arjan more clearly wrote. The nihilism and fundamental relativity that many westerners carry in their hearts is easily exploited by those who are not as ... tolerant. I despair trying to gather allies to defend myself when they willfully insist on rational equivalency up until, and sometimes even at, the moment that their doom has arrived. The thinking that their hatred or madness is no different from ours or any others only works so long as you can draw breath to think it.
That is where my perspective of western martyrdom comes from. The notion of dying for an ideal may be noble, but only if the ideal exists past their death.
GoatGuy,
I doubt the Germans would have a problem finding a solution to a Moslem takeover of France.
Europe has swallowed the demographic face-hugger, and that's that.
Making a big deal of European (non) reactions to particular incidents is silly. Europe rubbing its chest (appeasing Islam) and not even coughing yet (no visceral, popular effort to expel the alien presence) is not a story worth discussing.
What's coming would be an issue worth discussing if there was anything that could be done about it or if the futile discussion could at least be civil, but that's a double no.
Europe is a long way from being out of options, David. The discussion is not futile, and the outcome can still be a happy one.
Not without many changes in European attitudes, of course, because Matt's second comment is quite correct. But the logic of the jihadis will demand and drive confrontation. Probably sooner than is good for them.
Good discussion and glad to see that Joe is still optimistic. The problem is to define a pan-European approach. These things take a long time and the enemy we are facing is extremely resourceful and able to move easily across borders. It will require a complete rethink on everything from immigration to security to defense and justice. It will also materially impact on the daily lives of Europeans far more than what we are seeing in North America.
As for tolerant complacent political elites, they are in retreat, rapidly.
All of those states in the EU that hate the USA for doing the very thing they will need to do to avoid becoming Eurabia, are doomed, they would need to adopt the USA culture of principles, guns, and abolish the idea that all cultures are equal, they have a leftist-guilt-self-hate complex that will be hard to overcome.
Their seething hatered of bush shows that they cannot yet defend themselves, because it shows that their values, or lack of them in perverted inverted and wrong on everything that matters.
This sick culture was partly our fault, the USA provided their security blanket, and so they have lost the know how instinct and ability to defend themselves
The man was correct when he said unarmed men are slaves, they are slave-mind protectortats of government burocrats who actions are driven for PR apperances and justifing their own existence, and the population they "serve" are viewed as a rabble of inferiors not much above the status of cattle.
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html
" Happily for us Americans, English common law prevails in the US; our homes are still our castles. Californians, for example, are entitled to use force to protect themselves and their property. Legislation in Oklahoma which allowed the home-owner to use force no matter how slight the threat has reduced burglary by nearly half since it was passed 15 years ago. What British police condemn as "vigilante" behaviour has produced an American burglary rate less than half the English rate. And, while 53 per cent of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13 per cent do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed home-owners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a 30-year low. "
Not so in America, we do not live in fear and unlike the UN troops that stood aside to allow mass murder to commence in Rawanda, we still have the backbone to stand up for what is right, not to mention that the USA has an entire history of sending its sons in arms to bleed and die for the liberty of of others ( with some of them spitting at us for keeping true to this ethic such as Iraq)
The reason you are spitting at is for toppleing a regime that has mass graves of small shildren with bullets in the head and toys in the hand, is the same reason you are doomed to the Ismalic menace.
The goverment took your guns away, and that took away your spirit, you are now a slave of the mind, a helpless government slave made powerless and acting like the powerless.
Ans spitting at those of us unwilling to follow you into slavery.
And as long as you see what I said abive as wrong and not correct and true, there is no hope for you.
Its that simple.
1] Condolences.
2] Great Blog, Arjan. I used to be a roadie for a rock band and Amsterdam was always one of my favorite stops (chough, hack, wheeze ;^D).
3] There is an excellent word in the English language: Repudiate. It means to completely reject the validity of something to the point that the given concept is abjectly odious to the vast majority of people. For instance, to use the most extreme example I can think of, "Nazi's and their ideology were repudiated by the allied forces and their governments during and after the second world war." That "Nazi!" is an insult over-used to the point of losing it's effectiveness to this day is evidence that Hitler's legacy is abhorent in the most extreme sense. He and his ilk have been very effectively repudiated by western civilization. That is EXACTLY what must be done to radical Islam in particular and the tactics of terrorism in general: They MUST be repudiated. Unfortunately, there is only one way to effectively repudiate such a movement: All out unrestrained warfare that is pursued to the endpoint where the terrorists are so utterly defeated and completely humiliated that virtually all will see the folly of attempting to follow in their footsteps. Unfortunately, we're not "there" yet. Even in the US and considering 09/11, there remains a significant minority who are anti-war and do not understand the necessity of war in any hopeful result for the repudiation of radical Islam and terrorism. Bush "gets it", and I "get it" (I watched the Pentagon burn out of my office window on 09/11), but there are still too many who don't "get it", even if we are moving in the right direction. Europe is even worse off. Years of socialism have spoiled a great majority of the population, and they have neither the stomach nor the backbone for war, not to mention the abstract reasoning ability (That's a polite way for this cowboy, hick, trailer trash, right-wing, Christian, Bible-thumping, Bush voter to say that Europeans are as stupid as fenceposts). I have been saying for several years that it's going to take something ultra-dramatic to wake Europe up, like the Eiffel tower being brought down or something. Perhaps the Dutch are smarter than I give Europeans in general credit for. I hope so. For all of our sakes.
All of those states in the EU that hate the USA for doing the very thing they will need to do to avoid becoming Eurabia, are doomed, they would need to adopt the USA culture of principles, guns, and abolish the idea that all cultures are equal, they have a leftist-guilt-self-hate complex that will be hard to overcome.
Their seething hatered of bush shows that they cannot yet defend themselves, because it shows that their values, or lack of them in perverted inverted and wrong on everything that matters.
This sick culture was partly our fault, the USA provided their security blanket, and so they have lost the know how instinct and ability to defend themselves
The man was correct when he said unarmed men are slaves, they are slave-mind protectortats of government burocrats who actions are driven for PR apperances and justifing their own existence, and the population they "serve" are viewed as a rabble of inferiors not much above the status of cattle.
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html
" Happily for us Americans, English common law prevails in the US; our homes are still our castles. Californians, for example, are entitled to use force to protect themselves and their property. Legislation in Oklahoma which allowed the home-owner to use force no matter how slight the threat has reduced burglary by nearly half since it was passed 15 years ago. What British police condemn as "vigilante" behaviour has produced an American burglary rate less than half the English rate. And, while 53 per cent of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13 per cent do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed home-owners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a 30-year low. "
Not so in America, we do not live in fear and unlike the UN troops that stood aside to allow mass murder to commence in Rawanda, we still have the backbone to stand up for what is right, not to mention that the USA has an entire history of sending its sons in arms to bleed and die for the liberty of of others ( with some of them spitting at us for keeping true to this ethic such as Iraq)
The reason you are spitting at is for toppleing a regime that has mass graves of small shildren with bullets in the head and toys in the hand, is the same reason you are doomed to the Ismalic menace.
The goverment took your guns away, and that took away your spirit, you are now a slave of the mind, a helpless government slave made powerless and acting like the powerless.
Spitting at those of us unwilling to follow you into slavery as if somehow you have evolved past all that is self deception.
And as long as you see what I said above as wrong and not correct and true, there is no hope for you.
" The disarming of citizens has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral force; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. -- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1793
"The problem is to define a pan-European approach"
That's a very big challenge, given the way certain governments have gamed the problem. Britain tolerates the most violent jihadists within its borders and gives them free reign to spout their hatred, on one condition: that they direct their violence outward, beyond Britain's borders.
France takes the exact opposite approach: official support for foreign jihadists (Raffarin: "the iraqi 'resistance' are our best allies") combined with ruthlessness toward jihadists and anyone Judge Brugueres (?sp) deems dangerous within France's borders. Btw, the French approach is vastly more restrictive of individual liberties or due process than the patriot act (think: Guantanamo).
kaveh,
"5. I am wondering if the Master himself was alive in our times, what would he be doing instead of painting? Most probably he would be going to the film school and then dropping out, like Theo, but then would he produce Theo's kind of work?"
I doubt it. Vincent had far too much respect for religion (he studied to be a priest and did missionary work) and for the struggles of ordinary people to sneer at them with the kind of contempt that characterizes the west's poseur artists today. Vincent's description of his aims in "The Potato Eaters" is in stark contrast to his great grandnephew's bile: I don't recall his exact wording but he wrote something on the order of, "I wanted to paint ordinary people and show them eating a meal that they had honestly earned, through the labor of their hands."
Concrete, real, reverent, honest: the complete opposite of the smug, sneering, non-art of Andres Serrano, Cindy Sherman, Jeff Koons, Theo Van Gogh and their ilk. The jihadist murder of Theo was horrific. But let's not pretend that there is not also cultural decadence to be found among the partisans of liberal "tolerance". Theo was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Good riddance.
I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about the statement: ...radical Islam in particular and the tactics of terrorism in general MUST be repudiated. Unfortunately, there is only one way to effectively repudiate such a movement: All out unrestrained warfare that is pursued to the endpoint where the terrorists are so utterly defeated and completely humiliated that virtually all will see the folly of attempting to follow in their footsteps."
1. Is total conquest of radical Islam possible?
2. What if, instead of suppressing Islam, it leads to counter-escalation?
3. Is the proper comparison of radical Islamists in Europe (or North America) really akin to Nazis? Or (in their numbers and political position) are they more like the Cosa Nostra in the U.S.: Murderous and vicious, but manageable? (In other words, is there a chance that Kerry was right on this perception?)
4. What happens to moderate Islam worshippers when radical Islam is targeted for destruction?
5. What replaces it? Christianity? Moderate Islam? Or a secular future? Specifically, what would replace it in Europe? If it's a secular society, doesn't Europe then go right back into the same vulnerabilities?
Yours, Art Kleiner (art@well.com).
Global Guerrillas
"Networked organizations, infrastructure disruption, and the emerging marketplace of violence. An open notebook on the epochal war of the 21st Century."
~ Art Kleiner ~ Bloghorn Bleghorn ~
Let's start first with the premise "radical Islam ... MUST be repudiated. Unfortunately, the [that requires] all out unrestrained warfare. [Their utter defeat and humiliation ensures] that virtually all may see the folly of attempting to follow in their footsteps."
Repudiation of Radical Islam is not morally attainable without simultaneously eroding the basis for tolerating evangelical Christianity or supporting western Capitalism, or embracing European-led Transnational Progressivism. That there would put to rest the remainder of the cascade of ideas that culminate at 'nuke them' or some such.
But let's "play ball" for a few paragraphs anyway.
1. Is total conquest of radical Islam possible? No, it is not. First, it isn't possible to get 5 people to agree on what litmus test a muslim's political bent is in order to be pegged as a radical or simply a fundamentalist and an avid, politically charged one at that. Without a crisp definition, the enemy remains without a face. No face, no target.
2. What if, instead of suppressing Islam, it leads to counter-escalation? Any attempt to take on Islam's "Radicals" would inevitably lead to a world-wide clash of civilisations, militarily, commercially, theologically, and ethically. As it was, when having to finally put the quabash on the Nazi's and Tojo's, the devestation to the world was measured in giga-man-years of destruction. A clash of billions over the definition of 'radical' just doesn't merit the downside.
3a. Is the proper comparison of radical Islamists in Europe (or North America) really akin to Nazis? This is where I agree with the sentiment: radical Islam (as opposed to the harder to define radical muslims that fuel it) has many parallels with the Nazi movement. Its tenets range from grand theories of racial superiority to one-way forced conversions, to us-versus-them usurous taxation to insidious but pervasive 'upside down' analysis and positioning of their cause vis a viz world events. The 'headless' ascendency of answer-to-noone clerics and the chilling rise of vitriolic islamic hatred, totalitarian state-controlled social mores and almost incredibly revisionist childhood education curricula is absolutely parallel with Nazism's 'achievements'.
3b. Or (in their numbers and political position) are they more like the Cosa Nostra in the U.S.: Murderous and vicious, but manageable? (In other words, is there a chance that Kerry was right on this perception?) Hard to say, really. The problem is more like what we are beginning to face with our "Bronzies", the enormous but slow moving ideological movement that is taking hold among the Hispanic population of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern Texas. The prevalence of rather nasty rhetorically "middle-finger in your eye" bumper stickers is rising amazingly fast. Law enforcement is reporting more and more 'community meetings' that have ended in possés of hispanic youth 'out to get some white ass and teach it a lesson or two'. Radical Hispaniola is on the rise. They haven't blown up any bridges, burned down any post-offices, or acquired any rocket propelled grenades. But, allowed (and even encouraged!) to foment, foment they shall. We will eventually have our own version of radical Islam. Europe will truely have RadIslam in a significant way in the next 25 years. We will start a face-down of the Bronzies at about the same time.
4. What happens to moderate Islam worshippers when radical Islam is targeted for destruction? I don't think that rad-I will be targeted in the way you propose. It will be fought in a more 'U.N. / E.U.' way, with bright-line idealism, ideological jostling and economic pressure being put on the various puppet kings and assorted weavils, voles and kleptocrats that make up most of Islam's sovereign governance. Slowly it will work.
5a. What replaces it? Christianity? Moderate Islam? Or a secular future? Turns out there are a few universal religious (or philosophical if you prefer) ideas out there that are attractive for all theologies to embrace in the modern era:
• All human life is precious
• No group of humans is superior to any other
• All people have a right to their own beliefs
• All are responsible to ensure the welfare of their families and community
• Theft, murder, avarice is anti-community and cannot be tolerated
• Clans are acceptible. Cabals are not.
• Law enforcement is a civic function, not religious
• state-controlled religions are unacceptable
• Religion-controlled states are equally unacceptable
• Regardless of faith, sex, ethnicity, education, or wealth, all citizens have both a right and obligation to be subject to the same laws
[there are a bunch more, but they all fit in one form or another in the Universal Rights of the U.N. Charter, and any of the liberal-authored Bills of Rights and/or Constitutions of the great democracies of the world]
So, the answer REALLY is, Radical Islam is replaced with a moderate, secularly-tolerant, cosmopolitan-flavored, open and tolerant Islam. Islam itself is subtly revised with little fanfare to repudiate its selected tenets that are incompatible with the general absolute rights and freedoms afforded to all humans, by all humans.
5b. Specifically, what would replace it in Europe? If it's a secular society, doesn't Europe then go right back into the same vulnerabilities? I think I've answered it best, above. Islam is desparately in need of reform, to bring it to the modern era in a way that is compatible to the internationalist universal principles of existence that we all should (but do not) share.
This is the right answer, no matter how one cuts it. But it will take another Egyptian, Jordanian, Yemeni or Arabian radical scholar to referee as many changes to Fundamental Islam as are needed to achieve the goals listed above. Another Arab like Qutb and his seminal, profound and totemic "In the Shade of the Quran"
GoatGuy
PS: -- Katzman!!!
dude
I love this new "green box around" formatting
"Repudiation of Radical Islam is not morally attainable without simultaneously eroding the basis for tolerating evangelical Christianity or supporting western Capitalism."
rolls eyes
In a discussion on a forumsite, 'Weerwoord' (= reply), titled 'civil war', many people think that, if things aren't stopped now, we could well have a civil war in twenty years time. I disagree. I think the problem is mainly that people can't defend themselves or their property. Previously this wasn't necessary, I think, because it was very easy for authorities to keep a cultural and ethnic homogenic culture under control. Citizens (as I was raised) must know the law. But now this is entirely impossible. For more than thirty years lawmaking & enforcement was put on its head, as in: adequate permissiveness = adequate enforcement = adequate rules. The main problem with this approach is that all rules are made ad-hoc. However, the problems disappear if you turn this upside down and say: rights = adequate rules = adequate enforcement.
The murder of Theo van Gogh was committed by a loner (yes, he had help; yes, he had a religious background, but does all that make him a terrorist?). It is not an act of terrorism. The government has now declared war on terrorism, but that is unlikely to be more than shooting at flies with a cannon and further erosion of the rule of law. I think the murder has been blown out of all proportion, by both politicians and the media. To me the murder is but that: a horrible, brutal murder. Order can be restored by admitting that people have rights and to develop the rules from there. And the murderer should receive the death penalty.
GoatGuy,
"The problem is more like what we are beginning to face with our "Bronzies", the enormous but slow moving ideological movement that is taking hold among the Hispanic population of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern Texas. The prevalence of rather nasty rhetorically "middle-finger in your eye" bumper stickers is rising amazingly fast. Law enforcement is reporting more and more 'community meetings' that have ended in possés of hispanic youth 'out to get some white ass and teach it a lesson or two'. Radical Hispaniola is on the rise. They haven't blown up any bridges, burned down any post-offices, or acquired any rocket propelled grenades. But, allowed (and even encouraged!) to foment, foment they shall. We will eventually have our own version of radical Islam. Europe will truely have RadIslam in a significant way in the next 25 years. We will start a face-down of the Bronzies at about the same time."
Can you give me some links or information on this?
Mark:
Yes, I know ... by tossing those 4 together, there is a rhetorical relativism that is plain and simple wrong. It is not what I meant. I know full well that Radical Islam is intrinsically a cult, is wicked to the core, and is cancerous to boot. I was trying to point out that there are groups that consider the whole of evangelical christian missionary work to be 'evil' (especially the ordinary "moderate" muslim, for that), there are political systems that consider free-market capitalism to be anathema, and so on. The real focus of my long winded thesis is to identify not just radical islam but to further specify that we're to target the aggressive, unbalanced, jihadist/mujahideen, the anti-civilisational clerics and their madrassas, the terrorists, the international thugs, thieves, warlords and blocs that are in the way. Better?
Goatguy,
Forgive me if I've misundertood you, but on its face this assertion is completely off. It's not the "definition" of something that we're fighting over, it's the actions of those radical few/many/however-many-there-are.
Goat Guy - most people outside the United States call "radical islam" Wahhabism.
Since we have a 'good' relationship with the source of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, our press and our government doesn't choose to use this word to identify the source of the worldwide jihad that is responsible for the deaths of millions in the Sudan, thousands in New York, Israel, and many more in India, Thailand and throughout the middle east. These extremist, puritan beliefs, which are the basis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's government, are described here by MetaReligion:
[Wahhabi theology and jurisprudence is based respectively on the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah and on the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal; they stress literal belief in the Quran and Hadith and the establishment of a Muslim state based solely on Islamic law.
The contemporary Wahhabi movement is flourishing in every Muslim country. In Lebanon alone, the movement is estimated by officials to have about 4,000 members; it is far larger in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It goes by many names, including Ikhwan, Salifiyya, Mowahabin, and the best known, Taliban. Anti-Wahhabi Muslims refer to Wahhabism as fitna an Najdiyyah or "the trouble out of Nejd." Wahhabis receive financial support at the highest levels of the Saudi Arabian government.
Wahhabi religious schools, known as madrassas , are part of a worldwide network of Muslim extremists. Beginning at ages 7-15, Wahhabi schools indoctrinate young men into the fundamentals of strict Islam, religious obligations, and radical militancy. Between the ages of 15-25, the young men are prepared for jihad and are trained to fight for the conquest of Wahhabi Islam. Not all of the young men who attend Wahhabi schools turn to violence. Some become religious teachers, and the vast majority of Wahhabi communities do not openly maintain armed militias, although they may engage in paramilitary training. The exception is the Taliban, who do not conceal weapons or other arms. The term Wahhabi has pejorative connotations, and Saudis themselves do not use the term, preferring to call themselves Unitarians, believers in one indivisible deity.
The Wahhabis' strict interpretation of the Sharia has sanctioned extreme laws and forms of punishment. According to Stephen Schwartz in the October 6, 2001 London Spectator , virtually all recent acts of terrorism have been enacted by Wahhabis. "Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at Luxor not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting blasphemous cries of ecstasy. So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists, whose contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So are the Taliban style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus."]
Defining the source and the goals of the current Wahhabi campaign of mass slaughter is important.
Cicero - we should treat Islamofascism's medieval sensibilities with the same respect that we showed to a similar cult, the Thousand Year Reich. If they're offended by Van Gogh's film, 'Submission,' then the airwaves and the net should be flooded with 'Submission' to the point where the Islamists choke on it.
I was hoping to post the script and some stills from the film on site, but I haven't been able to find any working links to the film or photos. Does anyone have any reliable links to the mpeg or stills?
How do you say "Patriot Act" in Dutch? I think we're going to find out.